RSSL vs. AFSC

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RSSL (Global X Russell 2000 ETF) and AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. RSSL is passively managed, while AFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, RSSL returned 43.38% vs 28.96% for AFSC. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RSSL charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFSC.

Performance

RSSL vs. AFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSSL achieves a 18.48% return, which is significantly higher than AFSC's 17.39% return.

RSSL

• 1D: 0.94%
• 1M: 4.34%
• YTD: 18.48%
• 6M: 19.47%
• 1Y: 43.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AFSC

• 1D: 0.86%
• 1M: 1.65%
• YTD: 17.39%
• 6M: 15.69%
• 1Y: 28.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RSSL vs. AFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RSSL Global X Russell 2000 ETF	18.48%	9.82%
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	17.39%	2.67%

Correlation

The correlation between RSSL and AFSC is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025	0.90

The correlation between RSSL and AFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RSSL vs. AFSC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

RSSL

RSSL Risk / Return Rank: 68
RSSL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
RSSL Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
RSSL Omega Ratio Rank: 59
RSSL Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
RSSL Martin Ratio Rank: 73

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 48
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 40
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 58

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

RSSL vs. AFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	RSSL	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	1.57	+0.71
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.12	2.24	+0.89
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.26	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.96	2.76	+1.20
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.98	10.46	+3.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSSL vs. AFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSSL Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is higher than the AFSC Sharpe Ratio of 1.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSSL and AFSC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RSSL	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	1.57	+0.71
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.93	0.70	+0.24

Drawdowns

RSSL vs. AFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSSL drawdown since its inception was -27.79%, which is greater than AFSC's maximum drawdown of -21.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSSL and AFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSSL	AFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.79%	-21.68%	-6.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.93%	-10.29%	-0.64%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	-1.10%	+0.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.71%	-4.16%	-1.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.10%	2.72%	+0.38%

Volatility

RSSL vs. AFSC - Volatility Comparison

Global X Russell 2000 ETF (RSSL) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) have volatilities of 5.62% and 5.55%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSSL	AFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.62%	5.55%	+0.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.49%	13.99%	-0.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.11%	18.58%	+0.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.46%	22.60%	-0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.46%	22.60%	-0.14%

RSSL vs. AFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSSL has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than AFSC's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSSL vs. AFSC - Dividend Comparison

RSSL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.27%, more than AFSC's 0.07% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%
RSSL Global X Russell 2000 ETF	1.27%	1.35%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSSL and AFSC in my portfolio?

RSSL and AFSC have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSSL or AFSC?

RSSL has higher volatility (5.62%) compared to AFSC (5.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSSL dropped -27.79% vs AFSC's -21.68%.

Which ETF is better, RSSL or AFSC?

On 1-year performance, RSSL leads with 43.38% vs 28.96% for AFSC. On fees, RSSL is cheaper at 0.08% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSSL or AFSC?

Over the 1-year period, RSSL has performed better with a 43.38% return vs 28.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSSL or AFSC?

RSSL is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSSL or AFSC?

RSSL has the higher dividend yield at 1.27%, compared with 0.07% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between RSSL and AFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for RSSL and 0.65% for AFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSSL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.57), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.